Jump to content

Talk:North Macedonian passport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peace in balkans (talk | contribs) at 08:40, 21 May 2020 (→Requested move 16 May 2020). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Official name is the The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, if I remember correctly...!

No, the official name is the "Republic of Macedonia". J.delanoygabsadds 16:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the information on this page about visa free entrey ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.122.204.58 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can Macedonians get a passport to visit the United States?

I have been reading that Macedonias can get passport... But when I speak to my friend who lives in Skopje, Macedonia he tells me repeatedly that no matter what things say online that the citizens there are not able to get passports. Can anyone shed light on this or help me to get my Macedonian friend to the U.S. for a visit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jospehwisdom (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

На мапата не се точно обележани сите земји. Покрај Русија со истата боја треба да бидат обележани Украина, Азербејџан и Белорусија. Исто така островите кои се наоѓаат северно од Русија, а и припаѓаат на Русија не се обележани. Данска исто така припаѓа на шенген зоната и треба да биде обележана заедно со Фарските острови и Гренланд. Има уште неколку грешки кај земјите во Централна и Јужна Америка и некои од островите кои припаѓаат на Јапонија.

Имам направено мапа со сите горенаведени работи која исто така е во поголема резолуција, но незнам како да ја прикачам. Ако сакате поправете ги грешките или па објаснете ми како да ја прикачам. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tox em (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

people.. something is wrong with the page. macedonian citizens definitly CANNOT travel visafree in the EU or Canada. somebody mixed everything with the map and the country list

== Macedonian Citizens with Biometric Passport can travel visa free in the Schengen Countries of the EU: Austria Germany Belgium Denmark Finland France Greece Iceland Italy Luxemburg Norway Portugal Spain Sweden The Netherlands Macedonian Citizens do need visa to enter Canada and the USA.== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.80.244.204 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Macedonian passport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Macedonia passport | State posessions cannot bear the adjective "Macedonian"

The adjective "Macedonian" cannot be used in government or bodies financed partially by the government of the Republic of North Macedonia. Instead, these bodies have to be referred as "of North Macedonia". This was mutually established and became officially legal in North Macedonia after the ratification of the Prespa Treaty. The government has already started the renaming of all institutions bearing the adjective "Macedonian" for that reason.

Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion and in order to respect the sensitivity of both nations, the article should be referred to as it is legally accepted and established: "Passport of North Macedonia" or "North Macedonia passport".

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/north-macedonia-rename-state-funded-bodies-anthem-61507425 https://www.amna.gr/en/article/340916/North-Macedonia-begins-renaming-state-institutions--agencies https://balkaneu.com/government-in-north-macedonia-decides-to-change-the-names-of-136-institutions-in-the-country/

--Elias I. Raptis (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had a central discussion on how to handle these naming issues, please see WP:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. A result will be posted shortly; until then, it's best not to make sweeping changes. There was no consensus in the RfC to avoid the adjective "Macedonian" in contexts like this. Please also note that we do not use "North Macedonia" retroactively in historical contexts pre-2019. Plus, this article necessarily describes the existing, pre-Prespa passports, since updated ones with the new names don't exist yet, so please don't change descriptions such as saying that the nationality is entered as "Citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia". It certainly will be in the new ones to be issued. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are not the North Macedonian government; thus we are not subject to Prespa. Should be at the adjectival form anyway since that's how it's done for all passport articles here. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 04:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 May 2020

North Macedonian Passport → North Macedonian passport – Proper capitalization. Khajidha (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this article was previously moved unilaterally ten times within 15 months, 4 times within the last month:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before the discussion starts, I'd like to remind everyone that the applicable naming policy for this article title is WP:NCMAC. I also think that the title should revert back to the relatively stable version by User:Numberguy6 - which was "North Macedonia passport". This version was there for almost a year, and then an edit war by Macedonian and Greek editors got to this version. The issue is not whether to use a capitalized version of "passport". --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support return to proper capitalization ("passport"), obviously. Weak support for keeping the proper adjectival form ("Macedonian") rather than the bare nominal compound form ("Macedonia"), which is unidiomatic if not downright ungrammatical in English. Neutral on whether it should be bare "Macedonian" or "North Macedonian". I very much anticipate there won't be any consensus here, as there are three candidate forms and three groups of editors, each of which strongly objects to one form but accepts the other two, hence a three-way stalemate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the bare nominal compound form is accepted in English if there is no adjectival form: New Zealand passport. I don't have a strong view on the question, but if you take the view that "North Macedonian" is not a legitimate adjective, then "North Macedonia passport" is not that far-fetched. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, compounds are used if there are no adjectival forms. But linguistically, there clearly is an adjective available here ("Macedonian", with or without the "North"), so I'd suppose it would grammatically preempt the use of the compound here, in terms of native speakers' linguistic intuition. That's independent of whether people feel the adjective (with or without the "North") is politically acceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Australians are native speakers of English, and apparently they consider "North Macedonia passport" good enough to use on an official government website. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think there should be a move, but I agree with King of Hearts. According to me, it should be moved to North Macedonia passport, like it was before this senseless name moving started. — Tom(T2ME) 08:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support changing back to the version reached by the consensus ("North Macedonia passport"), before it was unceremoniously changed into "Macedonian" without discussion (as has happened in many other articles). --Antondimak (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Antondimak: What consensus where? --T*U (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In last year's RfC, and the subsequent process of updating to the new standard shortly after. --Antondimak (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Antondimak: Are you really claiming that "North Macedonia passport" is the version reached by the consensus in last year's RfC? Then you will need to show us where. --T*U (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was the version reached by the consensus in the subsequent process of updating to the new standard shortly after. The RfC decided it would be "North Macedonian" if we are to use an adjective. So not "Macedonian". It doesn't say anything against doing what is done for countries like San Marino, where no adjective is used. So this version isn't banned by the RfC, was chosen for this instance last year, and seems to be the least controversial one. I wouldn't be against "North Macedonian" either, but I won't push for it. --Antondimak (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per Antondimak. North Macedonia passport is the correct name of the article, most in line with the spirit of WP:NCMAC and the majority of reliable sources (UN, etc.). There are other examples apart from New Zealand passport - such as San Marino passport and Bosnia and Herzegovina passport. Capitalization is not an issue, it's obvious that it should be "passport". --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Antondimak and FlavrSavr. The three examples of New Zealand passport, San Marino passport and Bosnia and Herzegovina passport are very good, and I think handling North Macedonia in an identical way is fair enough, that is, "North Macedonia passport" for the title and the box, and "North Macedonia citizenship" like we do for New Zealand citizenship, San Marino citizenship and Bosnia and Herzegovina citizenship. Nikokiris (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems there is some confusion over what is being discussed here. There are Supports and Opposes that both say to move to "North Macedonia passport". --Khajidha (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original suggestion in RfC. This has become a rather messy RfC. Above are mostly "Support" votes, but they support two different solutions. The suggestion of the RfC is to keep the adjectival form "North Macedonian" and just change the capitalization, which is what I support. Many of the "Support" votes given here are for using the substantival form "North Macedonia", a version not mentioned by the RfC question. There is also one "Oppose" vote supporting the same version. As for the argumentation about "New Zealand" etc., it is probably covered by WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if we are going that way, it would be more reasonable to look at South African passport, South Sudanese passport and others. The comparison with NZ etc. is actually not very good, since those countries does not have an obvious adjectival form, while North Macedonia (and South Africa etc.) has. --T*U (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is already a suggestion that has been discussed in the past, then I also support your proposal. You are right that the examples of New Zealand, San Marino, and Bosnia and Herzegovina are not good. South Africa is the perfect example, because there is no country North Africa, like there is no country South Macedonia. So I agree to handle North Macedonian passport in the same way with the South African passport. I also find your argument about an obvious adjectival form very good. North Macedonian is indeed obvious, but the other three countries don't have an obvious one. Nikokiris (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed decided to use "North Macedonian" and not "North Macedonia" as an adjective when referring to the country. However this isn't adjectival usage (as per San Marino, New Zealand, etc.), and therefore isn't banned by the RfC. I supported it mainly because it's what was decided last year when a lot of people were involved, attempting to reverse the changes that have been made by few individuals since. --Antondimak (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Antondimak: It is true that the substantivial construction is possible, but it is the adjectivial usage that is the normal in English. Would you ever consider "Greece passport", "Albania passport", "Switzerland passport", "Spain passport". I guess not, and I am certain that common English usage dictates (remember WP:COMMONNAME?) "Greek", "Albanian", "Swiss", "Spanish" in this context. I am also certain that "Macedonian passport" (and not "Macedonia passport") was the common English usage before Preapa. I will not make a guess about whether the common name today is "Macedonian passport" or "North Macedonian passport", but I am quite confident it is one of them. There simply is no reason to make any cramped substantivial construction, just like "South African", "North Korean" and historically "Eastern German". --T*U (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This construction is being used for other countries, and seems to be the least controversial one. Again I'm just trying to reverse the most clear violations of the consensus and to choose the least controversial option for now. --Antondimak (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Antondimak. At the point where the RfC was conducted it was simply to early to tell which one of the adjectival usage will become WP:COMMONNAME and indeed it still is, if you look at the reliable sources. Furthermore, because of the way the RfC was structured editors really didn't specify what to chose if there was a choice of North Macedonia (non-adjectival use) or North Macedonian (adjectival use) in an article title. The discussion in the RfC mostly revolved around what to use within the articles themselves, in which it was clear that for *state related entities* "North Macedonian" would be preferred (there was no consensus on other entities, though). In an absence of a clear WP:COMMONNAME avoidance of adjectival use is the best, most WP:NPOV course and the least likely to cause friction.--FlavrSavr (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, it was decided not to use "North Macedonia" as a replacement of adjectival identifiers, but in this case there is precedent in using the country name. --Antondimak (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No there isn't. There is precedent for using compounds with the country name where that is compatible with proper English grammar. In cases where adjectives exist, it isn't proper English grammar. Citing cases like "New Zealand" as if they were comparable to this here is disingenuous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was supposed to be the most moderate option. If it causes even more controversy then we may as well use "North Macedonian". --Antondimak (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "most moderate option" is to quit trying to control English grammar and usage. --Khajidha (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary, it seems like the options and the arguments of the discussion are the following:
  • North Macedonia, it is a neutral form but is not proper english and was not an option in the RfC question either
  • Macedonian, it is proper english, but it may not be the proper adjectival reference for North Macedonia based on consensus reached last year as claimed above
  • North Macedonian, it is proper english, it is proper adjectival reference for North Macedonia, and there was also consensus as claimed above
So the question is, was there really consensus about using North Macedonian when we refer to something related to the state? An answer here would simplify the problem. In my opinion, WP:MOSMAC confirms this claim, but it would be nice to clarify this issue before we take a side and vote, because I feel like we talk about different things. Nikokiris (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian government would disagree that "North Macedonia passport" is not proper English. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support North Macedonia passport per my comments above, as there is definitely support for its use in external sources. But I can also accept Passport of North Macedonia as a compromise between those who want to strictly enforce grammatical rules and those who believe that doing so would violate some "common sense" constraint. This reminds me of the debate over the Aurora shooting: the grammarians wanted "Aurora, Illinois, shooting", the "common sense" people said that looks ridiculous and preferred "Aurora, Illinois shooting", while "2019 Aurora shooting" (a technically unambiguous title) was rejected for causing potential confusion with Aurora, Colorado, the site of two other shootings. In such a case perhaps "Shooting in Aurora, Illinois" would be a reasonable compromise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • RfC decision for State-associated and other public entities: as reported here in #3 by the Arbitration Committee, and we have to accept as a community, as they said:
What term should be used when referring to state-associated entities, including governmental organisations and official ranks, as well as other public entities from North Macedonia as specified in Prespa agreement?
Option B: Both "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. e.g. the North Macedonian Government or the Government of North Macedonia.
The closing panel agrees that there is consensus for Option B. Furthermore, noting the fact that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement, newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common, and we have the existing policies of WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:COMMONNAME.
I will not vote here, there is a super-clear RfC decision. Peace in balkans (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguable whether a passport counts as a "state-associated entity", since one would most typically imagine governmental agencies rather than individual government-issued documents when reading that. Indeed, it has quite a bit in common with the nationality question (since a (North) Macedonian passport indicates (North) Macedonian citizenship), on which the panel found no consensus.
Also, note that per WP:NCMAC, "Article names, categories, and templates should avoid adjectival use altogether." I view RfC question 3 as rejecting "Macedonian" in favor of "North Macedonian" on state entities (again, not clear if that applies here), but silent on whether "North Macedonia" can be used as a noun adjunct. IMO "North Macedonia passport" is in keeping with the spirit of the RfC, and the only thing it contravenes is a prescriptivist view of grammatical rules. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That last sentence in the guideline was added by someone as an afterthought during the final redacting of the guideline, with very little discussion, and I doubt it ever had consensus. It is certainly not based on any consensus achieved in the RfC. Honestly, I notice that sentence just now for the first time (and I was quite actively involved in both the RfC and the subsequent drafting discussion, but I must have missed that last-second addition). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just assumed (like everybody else, I guess) that the guideline was made according to the result of the RfC. Now it turns out that it contains "rules" that never were discussed in the RfC. I have been digging into the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia), and it seems that this "rule" was first introduced in this edit and later repeated here with the comment This is also non-contentious, I believe. The present discussion shows clearly that such is not the case (and I am surpriced that anyone could think it was). So now is the question: Do we really have to consider a guideline that has never been discussed? --T*U (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the entirety of what NCMAC should say: 1) write just as you would for any country with a name in the format of _____________ia. --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The draft guideline based on RfC was proposed by Future Perfect at Sunrise and there was a lively discussion with numerous additions and proposals which were again, voted and discussed over and over again. To say guideline that has never been discussed for a guideline that was discussed for months in detail is disrespectful to all those of us who have been there from the start to the end. Future Perfect at Sunrise wanted to bridge the gap between the results of the RfC and a truly workable guideline so he took his creative energy and put a proposal which was then amended by good faith proposals, again - discussed in detail. Nowhere in the RfC would you read that in all other contexts, both "North Macedonian" and "Macedonian" may be used on Wikipedia in reference to the country, because there was no consensus on that issue but everybody agreed that it was a reasonable compromise, although the default "no consensus" solution would be to keep to the old guideline, namely, "Macedonian". Also, my proposal about the article titles etc. was in the spirit of the RfC discussions which mostly revolve around usage in the articles themselves. The proposal was there, for several days, maybe even weeks, and nobody ever objected to it... because it was, in fact, non-contentious. It wasn't a 'last second addition' somehow foxed in the guideline. --FlavrSavr (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For a brief history of how this 'last second addition' happened, read this discussion. Future Perfect at Sunrise, this is not the first time you're noticing this sentence. :) --FlavrSavr (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about a guideline that has never been discussed was of course not referring to the total guideline, but to the specific part about article titles. That was never discussed in the RfC, and it is imo far from being non-contentious. --T*U (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this was discussed in the RfC, and it was discussed post-RfC. Just please take the time to read the actual comments in the RfC (they mostly revolve around usage within articles) and how this part came into being. --FlavrSavr (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reread the relevant parts of the original RfC, and I am even more convinced that there is no foundation in that discussion or in the closure for the should avoid adjectival use altogether. The other discussion you link to was conducted after the guideline was released, so I cannot see that it has anything to do with how this part came into being. --T*U (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TU-nor: I'm sorry to intervene in the conversation with FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) but having participated actively to the RfC and the post-RfC drafting, I just want to add my two cents on the matter. If you go and check my vote on the specific RfC question it was very clear to me at the time that "of North Macedonia" seems to be the only appropriate choice for page titles, given that it is the only WP:OFFICIALNAME as defined by the agreement and acknowledged by all involved parties (e.g. "Government of North Macedonia", "Prime Minister of North Macedonia"). I don't see however what should prevent us to use the natural adjectival equivalent, within articles, when we would do exactly the same for any other case. This was never contested by anyone during the RfC, while the closing committee's remarks are that public entities are being retitled per Prespa agreement and newer sources find "North Macedonia"-related terminology more common, without stipulating the use of one or another form. I noticed many times during the RfC that we were lacking clarity in the formulation of the RfC questions but my understanding of WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:NAMECHANGES policies is that when we are discussing a question about "State-associated and other public entities" that are being officially renamed per Prespa agreement we need to follow the official renaming and/or use the common names when possible. Given that in the contentious issue of adjectives the closing committee's comment is that there is no consensus to mandate the use of one adjective or the other at all times (Macedonian vs North Macedonian), how else can this be translated to a rule that respects all above policies and conclusions in the titles of State-associated and other public entities officially renamed per Prespa agreement? --Argean (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I really like here is that FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) is a user with a lot of experience on Wikipedia, and this experience should not allow him to cheat, but he does it in any possible way. He was the one who propsed a sentence not discussed in the RfC and was involved in making WP:MOSMAC, and his comments back then sound like he accepts it, by saying it is a compromise. But in practice we see that he goes to every article and he replaces North Macedonian with North Macedonia's with the excuse "per Prespa agreement", violating WP:MOSMAC and engligh grammar. He also maintains a list with the so-called reliable sources, which is of course updated based on his needs. A quick google search will show to everyone that he doesn't include a lot of references to North Macedonian that come from international organizations, and most likely from other media too. So every time he wants to make a point about which term is used more often, he says look here. So silly! On one hand FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) has a lot of experience and contributes in Wikipedia, but on the onther hand he constantly ignores rules. He puts North Macedonian nationalism on the top and then Wikipedia quality. And of course there is Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) who is an administrator, but instead of ensuring that WP:MOSMAC is correct based on consensus, it is applied in practice, and nobody violates WP:MOSMAC, he has focused on me. He calls me a single-purpose account because I constantly report all these violations by other users, and he doesn't care about his role as an administator here. He cares only that I am a single-purpose account. FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) is not the only bad example here of North Macedonian nationalism who thinks that the word North Macedonian can be offensive... so silly! How can it be bad to say North Macedonian government? How can you argue that is government of North Macedonia and not North Macedonian government. North Macedonia is the only country in the world that announces guidelines on how the media should call stuff. Oh my god....! SO much nationalism in a country of 2M people! What is wrong with North? Do South African people have the same problems with South? But yes.... I am single-purpose account, so even if I make correct edits, Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) hates me because I introduce problems in his project.

A month ago I wrote on the talk page of WP:MOSMAC to report subjective claims about the Prespa Agreement, and the Arbitration Committee aggreed with me, but for one more time Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) said "ignore it.. it's a single-purpose account". So the lovely administrator does not care about what is wrong but if the account has many wrong edits or a few correct edits. So silly! Now we have another problem because of this clique of people who do everything to remove Nort Macedonian in any possible way. So silly! Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) had the chance to improve WP:MOSMAC a month ago based on my suggestions, but he focused on me and not my suggestions. Because of his silly behavior, now we face the same problems again. Let's see, will he do his job as an administrator or he will say again "you are a single-purpose account and I ignore you even if you are 100% right". Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) I know you want me to go away, and I will do it, but only when I see with my eyes that you have done your job, otherwise I will be here to remind you! I am not staying for you, it's not that I like you, I stay for Wikipedia!

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) if you don't take any actions to solve the problems I have already reported, I will report you again for biased decisions, and I will ping the Arbitration Committee again. You know not all people care about who is a single-purpose account. Reasonable people care about reasonable arguments.

Do you think I have nothing better to you than dealing with the same clique of people again and again? There is obviously a reason. So stop the problem instead of complaining. Peace in balkans (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are obviously a lot of articles with "North Macedonian" in them, some of them in article titles. Ironically, you accuse people of different nationalities of... Macedonian nationalism. Would you also call Argean, who's also a Greek, a "nationalist"? Maybe you're the nationalist. I've read you accusations a month before I chose to ignore them. This is my last comment on your antics. Good luck with the ArbCOM. --FlavrSavr (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean There are obviously a lot of articles with "North Macedonian" in them, some of them in article titles? Why there should be a lot? or why there should NOT be a lot? There should be as many as there has to be based on the RfC decision. We are not here to count articles, we are here to write articles of as good quality as possible, but your North Macedonian glasses don't allow you to put Wikipedia on the top of your priorities.
I never started making any edits to change Macedonian to North Macedonian for people, culture or whatever violates the RfC and the decisions of this community. You are the one who goes to every article and you say "per Prespa agreement", although you know the agreement doesn't matter, and edits are made in line with WP:MOSMAC.
Yes call me nationalist or even Southerner or Cetralist, does it change anything about my arguments? I was the one who said during the RfC that the ethnic Macedonian should still be called Macedonians, and whatever related to the ethnicity should still be called Macedonian, and I also said there is no reason to discuss these issues. So where is the nationalism? I respect everybody here and the RfC decisions, and all I want to see is that the decisions are respected by everyone.
How do you know that Argean is Greek or feels Greek? It's another single-purpose account that worked only on the RfC, and since then Argean has disappeared from Wikipedia. Did you see when was his last edit in Wikipedia? BTW Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) why you love this single-purpose account but you have issues with me?
You see that all my arguments are in line with WP:MOSMAC that you and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) essentially wrote, so why you don't respect this piece of work that you did? It's insane!
You can call it "antics", but you still don't tell me what is wrong from all my claims. Just tell the truth. Can you disprove any of my claims? Peace in balkans (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion on the talk page of 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, everybody can see that FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) was trying to push the idea of avoiding to use North Macedonian in the title, and the user Number 57 tried to explain to FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) in every possible way that only North Macedonian is in line with WP:MOSMAC. Now, for one more time, FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) does the same for the passport, the identity card, and for everything else. FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) always tries to find excuses to avoid North Macedonian like it is a prohibited word. I also noticed that Number 57 correctly reverted the edits of another user who removed the adjectival reference North Macedonian from the page of 2019 North Macedonian presidential election, so he has faced the same problems. FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) I don't know what else I can tell you, so please stop damaging wikipedia articles and respect the rules here! Peace in balkans (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really want to waste my time talking to an individual that just appeared in Wikipedia in order to promote their own agenda, but it's really annoying to see my name surfacing and being attacked for no apparent reason, without any provocation of any kind from my side. This will be my only and very last reply to Peace in balkans (talk · contribs) on this page, so please respect that.
How do you know that Argean is Greek or feels Greek? OK, I will just ignore the second part of this sentence and treat the first one as pure WP:AGF ignorance. If you want we can move the discussion to my personal page and continue in Greek, because this would be very inappropriate to do on English Wikipedia. Otherwise, I have nothing to say, because I expect that the very next thing to be requested from me will be DNA test results and a Πιστοποιητικό κοινωνικών φρονημάτων ('Certificate of Political Beliefs') as well...
It's another single-purpose account that worked only on the RfC, and since then Argean has disappeared from Wikipedia. Did you see when was his last edit in Wikipedia? I feel very important being spied upon, so thank you very much for the attention. You should know then that I'm more active at Wikimedia Commons, where my main interests lie in. It's ridiculous having that said by a user that hasn't done a single edit in a page that doesn't contain the word Macedonian.
@FlavrSavr: How are you my friend? Please, don't waste your time with narrow-minded obsessed people that have no other purpose in life but pushing their own views - they never listen to what other people say anyway. We had a very productive discussion over one year ago, and we managed to build a very comprehensive set of rules respecting all views and representing very well the actual use of terms. There were always going to be people that will try to hijack any constructive and collaborative efforts around here - they don't deserve our time and attention, as long as the community understands and respects the spirit and the rules of Wikipedia.
I won't participate to this RfC because that could be easily considered canvassing. I'm afraid that the discussion above is not coherent anyway. I just want make a comment on this and confirm that FlavrSavr (talk · contribs) has summarised the situation very well - of course there were no contentious sentences added to WP:MOSMAC at the last moment. There was a very thorough discussion on every single word added to WP:MOSMAC and everything was agreed among people coming from very different backgrounds and positions. I don't think that circumstances have changed since and most post-RfC conversations on the matter are initiated from the very same people that were not happy with the outcome and want to continue pushing their own agenda. --Argean (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Argean: you know very well that I didn't attack to you. It's a fact that you are a single-purpose account, based on the edits, and being single-purpose user is fine for me. By saying we don't know if you are Greek or not, I don't mean that I care about your identity and your feelings. I mean that it simply doesn't matter. The arguments of people matter here, neither where they come from nor how many edits they have. If you misunderstood, that's another story and for this reason I clarify that here. Peace in balkans (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add that from what I remember I too don't think there is anything really unjustified in WP:MOSMAC. What was written truly reflected the view of the majority of the participants. --Antondimak (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-Is "North Macedonian passport" a common recognised name verified by multiple WP:RS? No apparently according to Google, Google news.
-Is it an WP:OFFICIALNAME that should be used as a title for reasons of e.g WP:PRECISION and WP:DISAMBIGUATION? Definitely not.
-Is it a neutral name either? Could definitely be, but not since the 2019 RfC concluded that there is WP:NOCONSENSUS in the use of adjectives.
-Is it a natural name? Absolutely yes as noted by many as well during the RfC and voted over the other choices in this particular RfC question which were of North Macedonia only or of North Macedonia/Macedonian, neither of which conforms to the rules of natural English especially within text.
-Is there any requirements of consistency to follow another naming convention as happened in 2019 North Macedonian presidential election (i.e. WP:NCELECT) for passports? Not as far as I am aware of. Noted also the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina passport vs. 2018 Bosnian general election and the relevant requested move to 2018 Bosnian and Herzegovinian general election that was rejected for similar reasons.
As a conclusion both "North Macedonia passport" and "Macedonian passport" seem to be much more popular than "North Macedonian passport", and I can't see for what reason we have decided to ignore that, claiming that there is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at the 2019 RfC that overrides everything else.
P.S. Personally I find no difference between "North Macedonia passport" and "North Macedonian passport", but a huge one to "Macedonian passport". All these considerations were very carefully made during the formatting of WP:MOSMAC and incorporated as appropriate. We all know that WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE but that's what we have for now. --Argean (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response: All these questions have been discussed above already, and there is also an answer. So probably you haven't read the other comments. If you want, you will find the answer. The Arbitration Committee has taken all these issues into account, and the ArbCom decision is clear and is North Macedonian for state-associaited and public entities. Peace in balkans (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonian_passport&oldid=957957069"